reversal of merger, proposal (2)

[bwald]

Larry Trask's example of Basque "unmerger" is quite interesting, and not
unexpected for anyone who recognises the reality of synchronic
phonological(= morphophonemic)  processes.  He explains the gist as:
 
> For example, <zezen> `bull' has an expressive variant
><xexen> `little bull', and <zoko> `corner' has the expressive variant
><xoko> or <txoko> `nook, cosy little place'.  Such expressive
>palatalization was formerly pervasive in Basque, and it survives today
>in some varieties.
 
Similar (and probably related) expressive palatalisation is used in
Spanish, e.g., in talking to babies and forming nicknames, e.g., Jo*s*e >
*ch*e,  vamo*n*os > vamo*ny*o etc.  The relevant (part of the) Basque
expressive rule seems to be:
 
        s > sh/ch       (by /s/ I mean the phoneme written "z")
 
If I understand right, the rule remains in the relevant area as an
alternation between s and sh/ch in affected lexical items, keeping it
transparent and alive.  This souce of (t)sh, on a synchronic level, is
completely distinct from the historical phonemes sh and ch, which do NOT
alternate with s (and NEVER did).    [Larry implied above that it is not
STILL a productive affective rule in some Basque areas but was not clear on
whether it is in the relevant area -- and, in any case, the issue would
only be relevant at the time that sh-backing arose; he seems to take it for
granted, so I will too.]
 
I did not quite get the following out of Larry's account of Michelena, who
seemed not to have any tool of analysis that goes beyond surface phonetic
changes, but it seems clear from the data that the sound change of sh > x
is easily expressed as arising as an ordered rule which precedes the
affective rule.  The affective rule is not affected because its INPUT is
/s/ not /sh/.
 
If you cling to the phonetic surface for sound change (the traditional
concept), well, the affective rule operates on the surface as a
MORPHOPHONEMIC RULE FOLLOWING THE SOUND CHANGE.  IE, both the affective
rule and the sound change operate on the "surface", and the sound change
operates FIRST.
 
Larry notes:
>Consider the word <gizon> `man'.  This has the regular combining form
><giza->, and this in turn has the regular expressive variant <gixa->.
 
As we expect.  Then he notes:
 
>>From this <gixa->, Basque formed a derivative <gixaxo> `poor fellow',
>with the rare diminutive suffix <-xo> (diminutive suffixes, being
>intrinsically expressive, always contain the special consonants).  And
>this <gixaxo> has developed in Gipuzkoan to the unexpected <gixajo>, in
>which the first instance of <x> has failed to back while the second
>instance has undergone backing to the velar/uvular [x]/[X], notated <j>.
 
OK.  So we get historical confusion for this particular word, so that the
expressive origin of the second /sh/ became obscure for some reason. If I
understand the above account right, -xo is RARE, and it does NOT alternate
with -zo.   So, the origin of its /sh/ in an *affective rule* is not
obvious.  It's a crap-shoot whether the affect of the rest of the word will
save this /sh/ from backing -- and the lexical rarity doesn't help build up
a case one way or the other.
 
(Still, if the -xo morpheme generally tended to back, then that would
support the idea that it is the morphophonemic alternation per se that
protected /sh/ from backing, and NOT the "affect" of the /sh/.)
 
According to Larry:
>Michelena's explanation is therefore the following.  Instances of <x>
>which were expressive in nature clearly retained their expressive
>function, and hence they remained palato-alveolar and did not undergo
>backing -- because they were part of a wider system of palatal and
>palato-alveolar consonants confined to expressive forms.
 
As I said, it's worth explicitly mentioning that such forms ALTERNATE with
non-palatals.  The palatals subject to backing do NOT have such
alternations.  That's ALL we need to know to make this case similar to
other cases of "unmerger" in which a morphophonemic alternation, captured
in a phonological rule, distinguishes one phoneme from another but allows
them to overlap phonetically in pronunciation.  The important fact is that
the rule is MORPHOPHONEMIC. The fact that the rule is "affective" is
basically IRRELEVANT, as far as I can see, except for the point I make
below.
 
With regard to affective rules, something I discounted as relevant above in
favor of the alternation, there is something of further interest about it.
If in the relevant dialects, there is NO palatal except by the affective
rule, then it is NOT like Spanish affect.  Spanish affective palatalisation
rule does NOT create segments that do not exist independently as lexical
phonemes, i.e., /ch/ and /ny/ (also f > p and other irrelevancies which are
part of the same affect).  Presumably, the Basque rule does.  All I can
suggest about that is that languages vary as to whether affective (and
onomatopoetic) words are constrained by canonical phonological rules.  It
is notable that Spanish onomatopoetic words for sounds (as represented, for
example, in cartoons) can end in stops, while canonical words cannot.  At
this point we come to the boundary between words and conventionalised
sounds.  Forms like "bop!" and whatever in Spanish certainly seem to be
composed of phonemes, but violate word canonicity.  Forms like English
"whew!" and "tsk tsk", when pronounced, are NOT composed of phonemes, and
there is not much gained by calling them "words", though you can call them
what you like, as long as you recognise what's going on.
 
P.S.  Strange things happen in Spanish.  Speakers from Mexico City who
cannot recognise the difference between "ch" and "sh" in English,
nevertheless have at least one word with [sh], "Xola", the name of a street
in DF, that they pronounce quite distinctly from "chola" (with [ch]).  In
classical phonological theory this is a phonemic minimal pair, but is quite
clear that the pronunciation "Xola" is exceptional for the speakers, as if
some kind of "affect" on [ch] (actually assumed to be an Aztec word by the
speakers and thus treated with respect -- affect?)